People return to the polling stations today to elect a president. Current President Nicos Anastasiades is favourite to win a second term although it is difficult to make a safe forecast given the rather unpredictable behaviour of voters and the decision of the parties, apart from Akel and Disy, to back neither candidate. This creates a degree of uncertainty and an upset by Stavros Malas is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Last Sunday, the voter turnout was 71.88 per cent – the lowest ever for a presidential election but still higher than the 66.74 per cent of the 2016 parliamentary elections – and there is no way of knowing how many people will vote today. The refusal of the parties whose candidates lost last Sunday to take an official stand in favour of Malas or Anastasiades means one third of the people who voted last Sunday, about 131,000 backed losing candidates, could vote either way today in the absence of clear position by their parties.
It is the first time in presidential elections such a large proportion of voters are in limbo, left free by their parties to make their own voting choice. Some commentators were critical of this stance by the parties, arguing that each party had an obligation to take a stand in favour of a candidate because the presidential election would determine what happens to the country in the next five years. The show of indifference was not good for democracy and the political process, they argued.
There is a plus side, as this was the first time we had not witnessed the manic horse-trading among the parties, which always took place before the runoff. Neither candidate had to modify his policies and promise a share of the spoils of power in exchange for the support of another party. For once, the losing parties were not treating their supporters as a flock of sheep they could sell to the highest bidder. This liberation of the voters from the tight grip of their parties is good for democracy and it will be good for the winning candidate, who will be able to govern without having to satisfy the demands of his assorted backers.
The new president will have a mandate directly from the people and not one via a politician seeking a share of the spoils. It will also be good for the country that for the first time in 15 years Diko will not be part of the new government. Anastasiades, if elected, could decide to reward the Diko rebels that openly campaigned against their leader’s candidacy, but they would be satisfied with public posts rather than wanting to impose their political positions on the government.
As regards the two candidates, Anastasiades, despite his many flaws and old-style populism, has had a successful term. On his election he was handed a bankrupt state, a banking system on the verge of collapse and an economy deep in recession. He had to negotiate an assistance programme, which his irresponsible predecessor had left pending, and implement a range of unpopular measures. Five years on, there has been an astonishing recovery of the economy, with a balanced budget, an impressive growth rate of close to four per cent, an increase in foreign investment, record tourist arrivals and unemployment on a steady downward path. The problem of non-performing loans remains but this could not be blamed on Anastasiades as it was the opposition parties that blunted the legislative tools for tackling these.
It is an impressive achievement that nobody could question, least of all his rival candidate Malas, backed by Akel, whose mismanagement of the economy drove the country to the brink. Will voters take the risk of having another Akel president – very few buy the claims of Malas’ independence – with the disasters caused by the Christofias presidency still fresh in their minds? There is also Malas’ lack of political experience having been holed up in academia for most of his professional life; this lack of experience will make him more dependent on Akel. He has an advantage in not being part of the political system – he could bring new ideas and a new ethos to government, if his backers allow him to.
Malas appears much more committed to pursuing a settlement of the Cyprus problem than Anastasiades, who turned hardliner in the last year and went to Crans Montana with no intention of signing a deal. Many pro-reunification voters could punish him for this and back Malas, but these losses would be more than compensated by the gains from the rejectionist camp, which Anastasiades sacrificed the best chance of a settlement to win over and ensure his re-election.
We will know tonight if his calculation was correct.
